fredmila
23.11.2010, 13:34
Here is what I am on about:
A few years ago I bought a licence in perpetuity
(it says so in the contract document) of the then SDRC I-DEAS. I then used
it for a few years, paying for the maintenance and updates, the maintenance
being getting help with the numerous bugs the software had, really. Over the
years I paid them a fair amount of money and then I reduced the use of the
software considerably and decided not to renew the maintenance and updates
payments. Since then, I have had to change the hardware a couple of times and,
when I do that, I have to ask the present owner of I-DEAS for a new password to
make the licence work. They will not issue a permanent password, to protect
their interest.
The first time I had to change the hardware, the
then owner of I-DEAS, EDS, charged me some �250 ($387) just for an operator to
enter my new lmhost id in a programme and issue a new password. I thought it was
excessive then but I decided to bite the bullet as I had already promised an old
client to modify an old job.
A few weeks ago, someone asked me to do work with
I-DEAS again and I had to change the hardware again. This time it is Siemens who
owns the software and they are trying to charge me an extortionate �880 ($1364)
just to do the little job of issuing the password again. I complained and they
fobbed me off. I spoke to a software re-seller and he confessed that Siemens do
not like people who don't continue to pay for the annual maintenance and they
catch them when they need help with something like this. Siemens's argument is
that I have not been paying the maintenance and update fees every year. My
argument is that I have had no technical support, maintenance or updates during
the time I have not paid the maintenance fee, so it's not like I have been
getting a free ride.
I cannot see anywhere in the original contract that
I commit myself to pay the yearly maintenance fee in perpetuity. This is not
leased software, it is purchased outright and I believe they should not be able
to prevent me from using it with a charge that amounts to extortion. I further
think that they should give me a password that works on any machine if they do
not want me to bother them with a new password when I change the
hardware.
What I believe is that Siemens are trying to
terminate the use of my licence outright by giving me an unreasonable charge to
let me have a password because I will not pay for all the maintenance years I
have not paid just to get the software working again. They keep putting me
through to sales people to try and convince to pay for expensive software (NX,
Solidedge).
What particularly annoys me is that Siemens must
know that I-DEAS (and its successor) is being beaten out of the market by the
likes of Solidworks and they are trying to make me pay a high price for a
software package that is just about to become obsolete. One of the reasons I
started to phase out I-DEAS is because I started having trouble finding work,
using this package, when most people are using Solidworks, Inventor, still
Proengineer, etc.
Have I got a (legal) argument here?
A few years ago I bought a licence in perpetuity
(it says so in the contract document) of the then SDRC I-DEAS. I then used
it for a few years, paying for the maintenance and updates, the maintenance
being getting help with the numerous bugs the software had, really. Over the
years I paid them a fair amount of money and then I reduced the use of the
software considerably and decided not to renew the maintenance and updates
payments. Since then, I have had to change the hardware a couple of times and,
when I do that, I have to ask the present owner of I-DEAS for a new password to
make the licence work. They will not issue a permanent password, to protect
their interest.
The first time I had to change the hardware, the
then owner of I-DEAS, EDS, charged me some �250 ($387) just for an operator to
enter my new lmhost id in a programme and issue a new password. I thought it was
excessive then but I decided to bite the bullet as I had already promised an old
client to modify an old job.
A few weeks ago, someone asked me to do work with
I-DEAS again and I had to change the hardware again. This time it is Siemens who
owns the software and they are trying to charge me an extortionate �880 ($1364)
just to do the little job of issuing the password again. I complained and they
fobbed me off. I spoke to a software re-seller and he confessed that Siemens do
not like people who don't continue to pay for the annual maintenance and they
catch them when they need help with something like this. Siemens's argument is
that I have not been paying the maintenance and update fees every year. My
argument is that I have had no technical support, maintenance or updates during
the time I have not paid the maintenance fee, so it's not like I have been
getting a free ride.
I cannot see anywhere in the original contract that
I commit myself to pay the yearly maintenance fee in perpetuity. This is not
leased software, it is purchased outright and I believe they should not be able
to prevent me from using it with a charge that amounts to extortion. I further
think that they should give me a password that works on any machine if they do
not want me to bother them with a new password when I change the
hardware.
What I believe is that Siemens are trying to
terminate the use of my licence outright by giving me an unreasonable charge to
let me have a password because I will not pay for all the maintenance years I
have not paid just to get the software working again. They keep putting me
through to sales people to try and convince to pay for expensive software (NX,
Solidedge).
What particularly annoys me is that Siemens must
know that I-DEAS (and its successor) is being beaten out of the market by the
likes of Solidworks and they are trying to make me pay a high price for a
software package that is just about to become obsolete. One of the reasons I
started to phase out I-DEAS is because I started having trouble finding work,
using this package, when most people are using Solidworks, Inventor, still
Proengineer, etc.
Have I got a (legal) argument here?